yall overcomplicating it fr rule
do evil games expect evil prizes, thank you Rainer Forst
edit: this is a pedagogical post, not a philosophical one. i actually fully agree with the paradox of tolerance and its conclusion! i just find that it doesn’t work as well as an educational tool for introducing people to the concept. sorry for any confusion :)
Just be tolerant with the tolerants while intolerant with the intolerants, like a prisioner dilema strategy
yup! it’s quite simple and i wish the internet wasn’t so primed to cite the paradox posing a problem rather than saying the solution
i see people get confused by the paradox all the time, because they are used to the concept of the logical kind of paradox which has no solution.
but the concept of the social contract is intuitive. easy peasy.
i really wish this was taught with emphasis at schools, so many people think hostility is inherently the best strategy when almost universally the best thing for everyone is to just cooperate.
even in nature where one would be lead to expect extreme violence and selfishness to be the best strategy, we see that most animals most of the time just.. get along.. You even have predators and prey giving each other side eye at watering holes because everyone needs to drink and thus the optimal strategy is for water in dry areas to generally be a neutral zone.
Evolution tends to favour cooperation because it's just obviously more efficient for two creatures to share resources rather than spend energy fighting over it. Why wrestle someone for an apple when you could instead spend the energy lifting them on your shoulders so they can reach the apples on a tree?
ITT: A lot of people completely failing to understand what the paradox of tolerance means.
precisely! such a consistent breadth of misunderstanding is why i prefer the contract as a method for introducing the concept.
paradox is fine for more advanced discussions, like investigating why the moderate ideal of “unlimited tolerance, always” just leads to more intolerance.
but for people (most!) who are new to it? just use the simpler argument first. there’s no point in shaming them for not “just getting” a more lofty model of understanding, when you can easily switch to the lower level, intuitive language, at least until a foundational understanding is reached.
Less well known than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Karl Popper, 2 sentences after defining the paradox of tolerance he shows an easy answer to it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It's more shorthand for the absurdity of tolerating intolerance. It's a paradox of absolute tolerance, not of reality. It's not meant to be unsolvable in practice, only unsolvable within the frameworks of spineless moderates.
It’s a paradox of absolute tolerance
Literally! But I see people drop the “absolute” off the name all the time in conversations that introduce the concept (it’s not even in the Wikipedia title, despite “unlimited” being in the original author’s quote) which understandably scrambles the conversation. At best it leads to misunderstanding that needs to be corrected, at worst it leads to people calling each other nazi simps for not just “getting it.”
Usually used by people who think it is adequate to respond to words that hurt their feelings with physical violence
KARL POPPER IN DA HOUSE!!!
right, so if it’s a problem that’s always had an easy answer, why do i hear about the problem all the damn time 😡
name one other example of a “paradox” being used as justification or argument for something. you can’t, because there’s a sense of instability inherent in the term; a proper logical paradox actually has no solution.
so why do we fall back so quickly and consistently to the “paradox” as an explanation for perhaps the single most important concept in ethical philosophy when it comes to community preservation and mitigation of violence?
it’s rhetorically inefficient. no one actually thinks about paradoxes in this fashion, so it doesn’t make for a compelling argument. imagine if queer advocates were like “yeah technically it’s like, totally natural for just males and females to experience mutual attraction, but some don’t. a paradox! 🤯” nobody would buy it. instead we say “sexual orientation, while most common in the male-female reciprocation, is diverse such that male-male and female-female attraction also exist throughout nature.”
likewise: “tolerance is a social contract. violate the contract, society has the right to intervene.” boom. done and dusted. enough of the sophistry. enough of the sophistication olympics. use arguments that convince people, not ones that makes you sound smart.
It's called a paradox because it is unsolveable... if you are a free speech absolutist.
The point he's getting at is that absolute tolerance is not only bad; it's impossible. A society that tolerates absolutely everything - the kind free speech absolutists claim to envision - will inevitably become less and less tolerant over time, because the intolerant members of that society will abuse those freedoms to create more intolerance.
Its framed the way it is because Poppler is essentially responding to those people who invoke the slippery slope to argue that you cannot ever censor anything, because then how do you decide what not to censor? Poppler replies "Here's how."
If it helps you to frame it better, call it the "paradox of absolute tolerance" or the "paradox of perfect tolerance."
I gotta say, I love the fact I learned this through a comedian, who actually is literate and went through the work of reading and realising the answer is right there
I still fail to understand what your issue is with the paradox? I can't see why it would be easier or more effective to explain a social contract than a paradox. It differs from other reciprocal social contracts, such as trust for example, because a) it's the lack of the commodity itself (tolerance) which dictates whether it should be granted and b) it's not global, i.e. you can remain tolerant of a bigot's queerness while not tolerating their hatred. I think a) makes it a paradox, which sets it apart from other social contracts. So why not call it a paradox? I'm still not getting it.
I don't get it.
Because neither does OP. They're acting as if the paradox of tolerance is framed as an unsolvable problem, but it's not.
Poppler formulates the paradox like this: If you try to create a society that tolerates everything, you'll end up tolerating people who will abuse that freedom to create a society that is deeply intolerant (ie, bigoted, hateful, etc). In other words, if you act as a free speech absolutist, defending the rights of Nazis to be Nazis, they'll use that freedom to create a Nazi society.
Poppler formulates this paradox to push back against free speech absolutism. His argument is that the only logical conclusion is that a perfectly tolerant society must - paradoxically - be intolerant of exactly one thing; intolerance.
He's not saying "Oh no, what a conundrum." He's laying out a simple framework that allows you to determine exactly what it is and is not acceptable to refuse to tolerate.
The paradox forms the perfect counterargument to the slippery slope justifications used for free speech absolutism. Nazis will say "If you censor us, where does it end? Soon you'll be censoring everything. Maybe you're the real fascists because you're trying to take away our rights." Poppler refutes this by drawing a clear, explicit line and saying "This is where it ends. Right here." It shatters their slippery slope argument in one swift stroke.
There's no such thing as a paradox of tolerance. People who think there is such a thing just don't understand social contracts.
Longer explanation: the supposed paradox of tolerance is when people whine about not being protected by tolerant society when they do something intolerant. They claim society isn't so tolerant if it doesn't tolerate their intolerance.
In reality, society is built upon social contracts. One of those contracts is tolerance. If someone is intolerant, they've broken the social contract and therefore are no longer protected by that contract. In fact, it is society's responsibility to reject the intolerant actors to protect the rest of society.
I like the paradox better. It's more eloquent and it extends beyond a society. It can be used in many situations.
Plus, like, social contracts can change. If the society is a bunch of fascists, then clearly they don't give a shit about tolerance. Whereas the paradox can be applied all the time and can be strived for.
So here's the thing, as I see it.
Ultimately we need to tolerate everyone. Everybody is entitled to the same rights and protections. (Ideally, this would include food, shelter, safety, family, access to important media, access to sports events...all the things we find important, but I digress).
The problem is, everyone (seriously everyone ) thinks that someone should be excluded. Popular examples are people who commit heinous crimes: child predators, rampage killers, serial killers, and far right interests will typically use them to set precedent that some people need to be shot, or locked up in abusive conditions, or subject to excessive searches, or not allowed to speak, or whatever, and then those precedents are expanded to include anyone they can associate with them, and the next thing you know, liberals are rumored to have a child-trafficking sex ring in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. Also women don't have the right to vote because fetuses are more persons than their mothers are.
But we're not even there yet: Only recently has the LGBT+ community decided that trans folk and enbies are people too, and deserve to march in the regular pride parade (rather than their own side-mini-parade). This is one of the reasons the far right is attacking the trans community, because they're easy prey and the militants expect little resistance from the mainstream.
Another example: Even here on Lemmy, discussions of furries leads to suggestions and arguments that all furries are furverts into yiffing, when most of them just like adventures and dramas featuring anthros that might be other than Disney and Warner Bros. Looney Tunes. Observe also, rumors from the right wing about liberal schools providing litterboxes for catgirl children.
So yes, the problem of othering is epidemic. When it comes to people who actually committed crimes, we still can't help ourselves but just dump them in the (squallid, abusive, sometimes for-profit) prison industrial complex figuring they deserve the soap jokes featuring Bubba, but they too deserve real protections as per the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States. They too deserve to be treated humanely, and when we don't we find that those guilty of possession (of cannabis for medical purposes) also get imprisoned in squalid abusive conditions, as do women seeking abortions.
It helps to think of those who committed terrible crimes as broken like a toaster, rather than evil like a Disney villain. And if you're happy to wish them eaten by hyenas, then yeah, eventually those who are insufficiently patriotic and loyal to Dear Leader (or is just no longer useful now) will also end up in the hyena pit at dinnertime. Granted, some of our super-antisocial citizens are beyond our current capacity for treatment, but then our response should be to R&D more effective treatments, and in the meantime, keep them well and preserve their rights as much as possible, as if they're disabled in the brain, not as if they're self-aware monsters.
This is incredibly hard to do, and as the 2024 general election shows, the general population is easy to convince to just let the hyenas -- or in this case the leopards -- eat the faces of the marginalized, and risk that the leopards might still be hungry once there are only mainstream faces left to eat.
And that's to say, I know the society I want, but I have only a small fraction of the clues of how to get there. And I'm not sure there are enough of us who want that same society. 🎶 You might say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... 🎵
And I'm not even sure human society could get there from here before we run out of water and the climate crisis turns into a giant population correction (featuring not just famine, but war, natural disasters, Mad Max and cannibalism; It's going to be a big mess).
No, we do not need to tolerate everyone, because everyone includes neo nazis. We should not tolerate neo nazis. The same goes for any other group that intends to act, or acts to harm others. That includes CEOs who make a buck off of intentionally keeping people ill, dying, or dead for the sake of their company's bottom line.
The only way to solve the paradox of intolerance is to not tolerate that shit.
No, we need to find a way to tolerate absolutely everyone, down to the worst monster.
Granted if someone makes a racist statement in public, it is still appropriate to treat them as if they just puked their last five drinks in the middle of the bar. If someone commits a hate crime, it's still right and proper to arrest and detain them and try to figure out how they've gone mad.
But even fascists, neo-nazis and members of the white Christian nationalist movement deserve to have their rights respected (to the extent we can allow while preserving the safety of the community), which includes due process, and fair treatment while detained.
Firstly, we human beings are prone towards bigotry (what is likely -- we aren't absolutely certain -- was how human tribes protected themselves from infectious disease, case in point, COVID-19 spreading worldwide inside a year), and secondly we have to assume that antisocial behavior is not a character flaw, but a physiological problem, even if we don't immediately have treatment for it yet.
Generally, in functional societies, racial supremacy movements and religious-political movements don't get much purchase except due to large amounts of precarity, and they can be mitigated further with information- and electoral-literacy. Or in Marxist speak moving more people from the lumpen-proletariat into the proletariat. And yes, it's a problem because working people harder in the factories not only reduces political involvement but also parenting, resulting in intergenerational neglect and dysfunction.
Sadly, our ownership class prefer to be kings of a petty banana state than middle managers in an intergalactic civilization. And it's so consistent among the ownership class that again, it looks like mental illness or a human bias, which is why they put only tiny fractions of their wealth into public works, and then ones that won't ever threaten their position as a patrician.
If a so called “social contract” said you can’t shit in the toilet, what would you do liberal? Would you shit in the sink if the “contract” told you to?
better to shit in the sink than sink in the shit
It's simple really. A tolerant society cannot exist if intolerant factions are tolerated. Ergo, bash the fash.
Which is exactly what the paradox of tolerance says. So why are you agreeing with OP?
It's way simpler to say that tolerance is a contract and you're not bound by a contract breached by the other party, that description isn't paradoxical in any way
i agree with what it says. i just don’t think it’s good as an educational tool for introducing people to the concept.
e: oops sorry for the double comment
I think it’s more fundamental than that
Tolerance means you accept everyone into the social contract. Everyone. Even the nazis
It’s inappropriate to hit on someone during a work meeting. Inappropriate for gay people, inappropriate for straight people, inappropriate for everyone. At a bar, it’s generally appropriate until told otherwise
If anyone doesn’t follow the social contract, you respond appropriately based on the situation
It’s inappropriate in pretty much all situations to express a desire for ethnic cleansing. It’s inappropriate to say bigoted things. It’s extremely inappropriate to act towards such goals. You should respond appropriately based on the context, as per the social contract
There’s no paradox. You accept the nazis, until they start acting like nazis. If they keep that shit buried deep down, you tolerate them. If they don’t, they’ve broken the social contract
No. The second you """accept""" the Nazis, your society is no longer tolerant, and is in fact a Nazi state. Get real, bootlicker.